Getting it into your agent
One page per mod, every tool's command on it. A separate URL per tool would split the same page into five that compete with each other.
npx skills add qwerfunch/cladding --skill orchestratorgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/qwerfunch/claddingWrote this? Show the measurements
A badge with what this costs and how it scanned, read live from this page, so it follows the numbers instead of freezing them. Markdown for a README, HTML for a documentation site or a project page.
[](https://agentmods.dev/skills/qwerfunch/cladding/orchestrator)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/qwerfunch/cladding/orchestrator"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/qwerfunch/cladding/orchestrator/github.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>Or the 80×15 button, for a site that already has a row of RSS and ATOM ones. Only the verdict fits; the numbers stay here.
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/qwerfunch/cladding/orchestrator"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/qwerfunch/cladding/orchestrator.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>What it costs to keep this loaded
Counted locally with the o200k_base tokenizer, which is exact for GPT models; Claude uses its own tokenizer and its counts differ. Treat this as one consistent yardstick across the catalogue rather than a bill. Prices are per million input tokens.
| Model | Per session | Once invoked |
|---|---|---|
| Fable 5.1 | $0.00069 | $0.01348 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00028 | $0.00539 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00014 | $0.00270 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00135 |
Grade A, and why
orchestrator scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 1mo ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 74 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Orchestrator
You coordinate a cladding-managed project; you do not choreograph it — the host owns execution. How the work is decomposed across agents — their count, names, models, threads, parallelism, and the progress UI the user watches — is the host's decision, never cladding's. cladding declares WHAT must hold for a feature to be done and judges the recorded evidence; the host decides WHO does the work, HOW they run, and who fires the next cycle. Agents propose; the gates dispose.
See docs/ssot-model.md for the 4-tier SSoT model and
docs/feature-cycle.md for the cycle in full.
The cycle contract (per feature)
Development advances one feature at a time as a contract of OUTCOME conditions — not a script of
moves. A feature is done only when every condition below holds, and the deterministic gates
(clad sync, clad check, checkAc at L4) are the hard ▣ barriers that verify them from
filesystem + evidence truth, never an agent's say-so:
- Spec-first. A spec entry with
acceptance_criteria(and itsmodules) exists before its code counts as done. No code that no feature claims may land (UNMAPPED_ARTIFACT); no wide batch of unbuilt entries may race ahead of the code (PLANNED_BACKLOGunder--strict). - Implementation satisfies the ACs. The code meets every acceptance criterion its feature declares — the spec-vs-code detectors decide this, not a promise.
- Verification is independent of implementation. Whoever authors the tests or the review must be
independent of whoever wrote the code. This is judged from recorded evidence, not promises:
clad done/clad verdictlabel every completion independent or self-certified — human-authored or blind-authored evidence earnsindependent; tool/LLM evidence alone isself-certified(a visible label, not an accusation). The identity guard is the enforced floor (checkAcneeds human evidence at stage_4; a reviewer may not clear what they implemented or tested); the test-author's blindness to the impl is advisory, audited by the reviewer. - Completion is earned, never written. A feature reaches
doneonly throughclad done <featureId>— it re-runs the strict pre-push gate with the feature evaluated as done and flipsstatus: doneonly on GREEN, reverting otherwise. Never hand-writestatus: done.
What this file has done since we first saw it
Hashed on every crawl. A supply-chain change to an agent config is a question of when, not whether, so the history is kept rather than the latest state alone.
- 1mo ago Changed 2c24be5b1aaa
- 1mo ago First seen · 74 lines · 69 tokens per session scan A 1b758de0bdab
orchestrator is a skill published in the GitHub repository qwerfunch/cladding (16 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 69 tokens to every session and 1,348 once invoked, about $0.0003 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
maintaining-windows-health
Hands-on playbook for Windows 11 disk cleanup, dev-machine optimization, and proactive health alerting. Use when the PC is full or slow, when a BSOD / Kernel-Power 41 / crash dump / commit-memory pressure happened, when the user asks to free disk space, audit storage, set up disk/memory alerts, or restore the same…
prompt-engineering
Universal prompt engineering techniques for any LLM. Use when crafting, optimizing, or reviewing prompts for AI models. Triggers on requests like "improve this prompt", "write a system prompt", "optimize my instructions", "help me prompt engineer", "audit this prompt", "review my prompt", or when building agentic…
installing-cli-tools
Install, upgrade, configure, and verify developer CLI tools safely. Use when a user asks to install a new CLI, command-line app, SDK tool, package-manager binary, GitHub release binary, language runtime tool, or AI/vendor CLI; configure shell PATH/completions; run first login; set API keys, tokens, or env variables…
repo-activity-summary
Summarize a repository's recent engineering activity from git history — technologies, work types, churn hotspots, contributor patterns, and velocity. Use when asking "what has this repo been working on", "is this project active", "who contributes what", "where are the hotspots", or before onboarding onto an unfamiliar…
clipboard
Copy text to clipboard with optional rich formatting. Triggers on "copy to clipboard", "copy that", "pbcopy", "copy formatted", "copy rich text".
grok-cli
Delegate bounded tasks to Grok Build from a supervising agent such as Codex. Use when the user asks Grok to investigate, review, implement, or provide another perspective, or when a distinct coding agent would materially help. Includes a background ACP client for progress, follow-up prompts, permissions, and…